***Official*** Australia vs New Zealand ODIs 2016/17

[Blocky]

I'm just not going to bother, if people are honestly justifying our tactics in this case then we've gone back to the old era of NZ cricket where being competitive was good enough.

I'm out.

 

[straw man]

Realistically the game was 99% lost after Australia set 379 and only something very special from Guptill and Williamson would have got us close. I'll stick with my point that we really lack finishing batsmen, but today it was the bowling effort that's been far from adequate.

 

[Blocky]

So what instead he should have made a run-a-ball 15 and then been caught at mid on?

You're expecting the impossible from him if you think he could have just gone out and made 150 off 90 balls without getting out like 12 times in the process

I'd rather him hit a run a ball 15 and been caught attempting to accelerate rather than play an innings which effectively batted us out of the match; but like I say, no point, this is a worthless conversation to have, if people are honestly considering what Neesham and Williamson did to be good cricket, good for you.

 

[CM Punk]

He averages 36.5 from 21 innings opening at a SR of 80 excluding Zimbabwe... He batted in some really weird scenarios at the start of his ODI career iirc

Numbers seem really high, his highest score outside of the ton against Zimbabwe is 86..

 

[Meridio]

Bear in mind that we've been ahead of where Australia were at the corresponding time for most of this innings. The problem has been that a) our hitters aren't good enough; and b) Australia's bowling, particularly at the end of the innings, is far better.

 

[Chewie]

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Bahnz]

I can't believe I just took the time to read all the way through this thread for this innings and it was all ****ing jonbrooks and CM ****

Got them both on ignore, and there are some pages with literally 2 or 3 unblocked posts.

 

[Moss]

Pah, so the thinking must be "let's select a side capable of chasing 378 each time around"? KW and Neesham had the right idea, their execution wasn't great (unable to rotate the strike), but it was still perhaps the only way to keep NZ in the match.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd rather him hit a run a ball 15 and been caught attempting to accelerate rather than play an innings which effectively batted us out of the match; but like I say, no point, this is a worthless conversation to have, if people are honestly considering what Neesham and Williamson did to be good cricket, good for you.

The way they played was by far the best way to keep NZ in the match and possibly (however unlikely) win the match. It's as simple as that. They just weren't good enough.

 

[Meridio]

Pah, so the thinking must be "let's select a side capable of chasing 378 each time around"? KW and Neesham had the right idea, their execution wasn't great (unable to rotate the strike), but it was still perhaps the only way to keep NZ in the match.

Think Neesham needed to go a bit harder earlier, because he was the hitter in the partnership. Overall it wasn't great, but it was not the horrorshow some people are making it out to be.

 

[Athlai]

Realistically the game was 99% lost after Australia set 379 and only something very special from Guptill and Williamson would have got us close. I'll stick with my point that we really lack finishing batsmen, but today it was the bowling effort that's been far from adequate.

Absolutely, in no way is this a 379 pitch. Conceded at minimum 60 runs too many. Henry and Boult were shite and the 5th option at the moment is genuinely pretty spuddy.

A platform was always the best way to go about this innings once Guptill fell. Munro and CDG are there to launch. Both did nothing.Williamson and Neesham did a perfectly adequate job of giving NZ a very distant chance against a far better bowling attack than our own. Should we all bow down to Williamson? No, but who's saying that, Nobody. It's a decent innings in a JamODI.

 

[Bahnz]

I think it was the wrong strategy. We could never realistically hope to chase down 210 off the past 20 with the budget brand icing we've got in this lineup. We needed to try and push the run rate along at at least 6.5 rpo through that first 30.

Having said that, I still thought Williamson batted well, it's not really his fault that the bowlers had a full on melt down in the last 20 of our innings.

 

[Compton]

Williamson scored 81 at better than a run a ball, that's a great attempt to anchor the innings.

The only issue is that none of the bigger hitters came in and done what Marsh and Head did for Australia.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, Watling can't be in this team as a lower order batsman.

 

[Zinzan]

I think it was the wrong strategy. We could never realistically hope to chase down 210 off the past 20 with the budget brand icing we've got in this lineup. We needed to try and push the run rate along at at least 6.5 rpo through that first 30.

Yeah, this, They needed to be 200 by the 30th over to have a decent lick with wickets in hand. They were about 25-30 short at that point.

Far too many dots balls between the 10th & 20th over in particular, was the biggest issue.

 

[Compton]

Great.

Now Australia get to hotshot Cummins back into the test side, then look around at each other baffled when he breaks down again within 5 tests. Talk about how when he's back they'll need to manage him more carefully, then hotshot him back into the test side again.

Rinse and repeat until he finally retires to become one of those players that people go on about how he would have played far more tests if only he could have stayed fit.

You know, fast bowler stuff.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

I think it was the wrong strategy. We could never realistically hope to chase down 210 off the past 20 with the budget brand icing we've got in this lineup. We needed to try and push the run rate along at at least 6.5 rpo through that first 30.

Having said that, I still thought Williamson batted well, it's not really his fault that the bowlers had a full on melt down in the last 20 of our innings.

I'd say right strategy, those two batting through with a big partnership, but they were just unable to execute it well enough to keep the run rate high enough throughout. And I think that's understandable, it was a massive chase. If they had us in that match situation batting first, they'd have been doing a wonderful job.

The inability of the batsmen after Williamson and Neesham to accelerate is another matter altogether which I think we all know about and comes back to the poorly selected squad/lack of batting options in NZ atm.

But anyway, the bowlers let us down conceding that score and it was a one in a thousand chance of winning after that happened.

 

[Meridio]

Looking back on that, we definitely should have gone after Head more - him going at 4 and a bit an over was poor. Where we lost the game though obviously was conceding 378. I didn't see any of our bowling, but it sounds like it was woeful, particularly at the death.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think it was the wrong strategy. We could never realistically hope to chase down 210 off the past 20 with the budget brand icing we've got in this lineup. We needed to try and push the run rate along at at least 6.5 rpo through that first 30.

Having said that, I still thought Williamson batted well, it's not really his fault that the bowlers had a full on melt down in the last 20 of our innings.

These sort of innings always look worse than they are when they fail. I think it was a perfectly acceptable innings... It's basically the way kohli paces his innings if he doesn't have a Rohit at the other end to bat through. The problem is that Williamson doesn't quite have Kohli's explosiveness where he can flick a switch and score 40 in 20 balls at the end when the required RR is going out of control and neither does he have a Dhoni down the order to rely on. With that in mind, he probably should've looked to accelerated a bit earlier,but it's not a terrible innings by any means imo.

 

[Blocky]

Williamson scored 81 at better than a run a ball, that's a great attempt to anchor the innings.

The only issue is that none of the bigger hitters came in and done what Marsh and Head did for Australia.

No, the issue is expecting that you're going to have those performances in the first place.

You can't expect to mirror what the opposition were able to do, especially when they took the final ten for 130, if you're expecting that you're going to have two batsmen come out and blaze exactly the same way that Travis Head and Mitchell Marsh did then you're at best optimistic.

Arguably the platform was 100-2 in the 20th over, but let's keep in mind that Guptill got us off to a blinder where we were going above the run-rate until he got out, for us to go from 1 for 40 in 5.4 overs, to 2 for 100 in 20 overs wasn't good enough, but let's say for instance that's the platform, you've now got 278 runs to make off 30 overs @ 9.2 yet you let Travis Head bowl 7 overs at you at 4.42 an over.... you don't launch, you end up at 200 for 3 off 36 overs in which you're now chasing 178 off 14 overs @ 12.7

You finally decide to launch at that point, and you end up 262 all out in 47 overs.

But we want to say that Neesham and Williamson laid a platform? No, they laid a turd that we had no hope of coming back from, while you can respect the innings (I personally feel Neesham is starting to show that he should be our Test #5 and a long term batting option in ODI while ditching the bowling) for what they were, the lack of intent, the amount of dot balls and the fact that they allowed **** like Head to get away without punishing him isn't good cricket.

It was ALWAYS going to be a case of "one out, all out" from 200-3 in the 36th, had they been say 250-5 in the 36th, chasing 128 off 14, they'd have had a far better chance and ultimately needed to take far less risks than they asked themselves to do to get there.